Where do you personally stand on abortion and the life begins at conception arguement?

[galaxy21]

I thought it might be releavant considering the new Christian Taliban running mate and since she's almost certainly going to try to have it banned if she ever gets in power.


I agreed with Hillary when she said she thought 'the potential' for life begins at conception, and for the first trimester I firmly believe that's the potential for a person rather than a person. But after that? I personally don't think women should be having abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimestor unless there's a really good reason for it (health, fetal abnormalities). I thought Barack gave the wrong answer when he said he didn't know at the saddleback forum, and maybe should have said something about viabilty or brain activty.

Of course, I also think everyone in the pro life cause are total hyporcrites who don't have any great love of life at all.

[AllieB]

1. I believe that the government shouldn't interfere in a decision between a woman and her doctor.

Neither should you.

[galaxy21]

6. You're okay with a woman having an abortion a day before she's due?

I consider myself pro choice, but I think something like that is extremist.

[blondie58]

18. aw, come on- thats not a fair argument

a woman would not enter that decision lightly. As a woman who has experienced two babies growing inside me, the moment that the baby first moves inside of you, you know that it is a baby and you've bonded with it already.

[ismnotwasm]

40. You're kidding, right?

What the hell kind of thing is that to say? Abortion is illegal in many countries. It isn't accessable everywhere in this country. Women are suffering and sometimes dying. Mindless "yeah-but" speculation does nothing to promote a "pro choice" argument.

[krabigirl]

69. This happens how often? Like never?

[galaxy21]

77. Yeah, but you set up the principle that it can happen

You can say 'well, no reasonable woman has a late term abortion for no good reason' and most late term abortions do happen for a valid reason. But some don't. So, then what do you do?

[AllieB]

89. I mind my own business-that's what I do.

The decision is between the woman and her doctor, the woman and her partner, or the woman and her pastor, NOT the woman and you, a stranger.

[galaxy21]

92. You're okay with somebody having an abortion at 8 and 1/2 months ?

Like I said, if there's a good medical reason for it (Mother's health or child isn't expected to live long once born) I have no problem with it.


But at something like 8 1/2 months...its not really about the woman having control over her body anymore. She's been pregnant for 8 and a half months anyway, are 2 weeks of being non pregnant that important?


Its not about 'minding my own business'. You've got a fetus that, where the woman to go into labour and give birth right there would be a fully breathing, eating, pooping person and deserving of legal protection, but one mintue prior to that, it doesn't have any rights whatsoever and can be aborted on a whim?

Like I said, I'm not questioning early abortion. But by the time you get to later on in the pregnancy, its an entirely different situtation. It can live on its own. Its self aware. A 30 week fetus is different from an 8 week fetus, and you have to adapt your attitudes accordingly.

[Stellabella]

114. Oh, for Pete's sake, show us proof of this.

That's a right wing talking point - they just pull those things out of their asses.

No woman would even consider posting that. That just doesn't happen.

And BTW, women don't go skipping happily off to the doctor, thinking 'oh boy, I get to have an abortion today!'

Late term abortions are performed for medical reasons. The baby is dead, will die a quick painful death after being born, or there's something so wrong it threatens the life and/or health of the mother.

Please educate yourself before you go spouting off like that.

[galaxy21]

129. You want proof it does happen?

If you look elsewhere in this thread, you'll see the example of the doctor who was in trouble for performing one in the third trimestor because of a cleft lip. Now, a reasonable person would think 'no woman would go to such an extreme measure for such a minor problem'. Obviously that woman did. And there are many more examples of doctors being criticised (and facing legal action) for performing late term abortions over relatively minor health issues. George Tiller was in a heap of trouble for that very thing. And he's even said himself the late term abortions he performed usually weren't in the extreme circumstances you described and the fetus had problems that could be corrected with surgery.


Its about setting a standard. If you allow it up till 9 months, for reasons other than maternal health and fetal viability, then there will be times that's exploited.

[Stellabella]

134. If that's your only example, that's not good enough.

The things I found on Google about George Tiller were from extreme right wing sites, and there's a big thing about O'Lielly's show on him on Wikipedia.

If that's your source, that isn't good enough.

[ismnotwasm]

145. Fuck that

It's none of your godamn business what a woman's personal choice is. I believe in maternal moral authority, absolutely and completely at any stage of pregnancy. Don't give me your emotionalist forced birth bullshit.

I'll fight for the rest of my life to provide automony and reproductive rights for women. You're in the way.

[galaxy21]

148. What is your arguement here?

Is it that the woman should be allowed to have a late term abortion because she wants one? I've said I don't agree with late term abortion in general. I'm not forcing it on anyone. But I've said why i disagree with that ( and most people don't agree with late term abortion)

Or is that they should only happen when medically neccessary? I don't disagree with that either.


I believe in reroductive rights. But i'm not a cheerleader for late term abortion either.

[Lyric]

204. So it's okay with you if women are slaves, so long as it's only for a couple of weeks?

Look at it this way; compare it to sex. Sex can be a welcoming gesture, where you share your body freely and willingly. But even if at the very LAST possible moment, the woman says "NO!", the man STILL has to respect that. It doesn't matter if she was fine with it and then only changed her mind at the last minute. It's her body, therefore the final decision, ALWAYS, is hers. Unconditionally.

Pregnancy is similar. Her body, 100%, always. Anything less is an abomination. No woman should ever be required to play host to a foreign person/object/thing against her will--even in the third trimester.

Now, to look at your argument from a pragmatic standpoint--I have never seen any objective evidence of a SINGLE CASE where a woman had a 3rd trimester abortion for anything other than a medical/health/deformity reason. "Objective" is a word I define as meaning, "Not coming from a biased right-wing source and not elaborated or hyped-up with biased right-wing spin."

In the United States Supreme Court, there is a code of conduct that the justices follow. One of those self-imposed rules basically states that they refuse to rule on "hypothetical" cases. There must be an actual case brought forth from a party with legal standing in order for them to make a ruling. What you are doing is asking us to pass judgment on a hypothetical. It's illogical and wrong to do so. Until something actually happens to merit consideration otherwise, this American agrees with the SCOTUS--we should err on the side of liberty, rather than against it.

[RainDog]

149. your example is the exception, not the rule

and therefore should be treated as such. we have laws at this time that delineate abortion, as you seemed to have noted in your op.

The anti-abortion crowd is not "pro-life." They are anti-abortion and anti-life because they don't give a shit about someone after he or she is born. Unless, of course, they want fodder for cannons, in which case, unplanned pregnancies and female poverty are just what the good Dr. Rummy ordered.

[magellan]

124. Show us how often it happens for non-medical reasons.

Burden of proof is on you.

[galaxy21]

131. See: George Tiller

[magellan]

216. First of all, it isn't up to me to provide the info

YOU asked the question. But I did look and I can't find anything unbiased that claims this Dr. Tiller does anything but late-term abortions for medical reasons.

[AllieB]

144. Again, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what a woman decides to do.

I may be against late-term abortion, but I have no right to tell someone not to have one. Neither do you. Your posts indicate that woemn aren't smart enough to make the decision themsleves. And I think that you started this thread for your own amusement, since you obviously have no concept of individual rights.

Your posts are full of right-wing talking points and references.

[galaxy21]

146. I'm not telling anybody to do anything

I think a third trimester should only happen when its absolutely medically neccessary. And I've seen enough proff to know that isn't always the case.

I despise pro life zealots, but, jesus, you question having a late term abortion for a cleft lip and suddenly your jerry fawell.

[kath]

171. Proof??!! From right-wing websites?

I wonder if critical thinking is your strong suit.

[PeaceNikki]

116. So, your saying women and their doctors can't be trusted?

[Stellabella]

135. Yep, that's exactly what he is saying.

[galaxy21]

142. She, and here's the cleft plate stories

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/mar/17/health.healthandwellbeing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2367917.stm

[Stellabella]

143. This is the relevant statement:

"...the doctors believed, in good faith, that there was a substantial risk the child would be seriously handicapped."

[PeaceNikki]

173. OMG. One time, at band camp...

somebody KILLED someone else by hitting them upside the head with a flute.

BAN FLUTES NOW!!1!!11!!!

[Tallison]

212. ...

:rofl:

Posts like this are why I keep coming back here.

[uppityperson]

201. If you are going to argue, at least use the right term.

I see nothing about a cleft plate.

[galaxy21]

138. You get good abortion doctors and you get bad ones, like every other field

There are many that won't perform a third trimester one unless there is a legitimate reason. And there are some (rare) ones that just care about the money and don't need a good reason.

[PeaceNikki]

147. Again, you pull data out of your ass. Guess what? It stinks!!

It's a health care/reproductive decision for women and their doctors.

[galaxy21]

150. So, an abortion has never ever happened because of a cleft lip?

Are you on record as saying that?

[PeaceNikki]

151. I'm "on record"!?

:rofl:

That's rich.

On record: I'm saying it's none of your fucking business.

[galaxy21]

152. Seriously? You think a third trimester abortion should be allowed soley for a cleft lip?

Do you know how easy they are to fix?

[PeaceNikki]

154. I am saying I am not a doctor and don't have all the information. Do you?

Thought not.

[galaxy21]

157. Do you personally feel its a good enough reason?

[PeaceNikki]

159. That's ridiculous, Stop being Bill Frist. Actually, you're being worse.

At least he's a doctor.

[haele]

179. Just on a side, a cleft palate/lip may not be easy to fix -

minor ones, yes. The ones you read about charity doctors fixing in Mexico, etc. may look horrific, but they are still minor.

A major cleft palate might mean to survive, the baby has to be on feeding and breathing tubes until mom and dad find enough money to pay for the operation, depending on the insurance. Babies born with severe cleft palates in poor areas usually starve to death because they can't suckle or it's so bad that when the parents do manage to feed the baby, the baby drowns on it's own food in it's lungs.

The case you heard about might have been a monitary issue, like so many first and second trimester abortions are. The parents could not afford to care for a baby that needed such drastic surgery to survive long enough not to starve or drown. I doubt that a simple "cleft lip" that can easily be fixed with cosmetic surgery soon after birth would be enough for the mother to want to abort.

I've heard of enough "not so perfect" children that were abandoned at the hospital and the parents claim that the child was stillborn to their family and friends rather than admit they had a severely damaged looking child. At 8 1/2 months, it becomes a matter of viability for any licenced doctor, no matter what shallow parents who want "a perfect pet - errr - child" might think.

Haele

[uppityperson]

202. You keep going on about a cleft lip. Did you even read that story?

Do you have any idea what a cleft palate is?

[Tallison]

213. Abortion providers live with constant fear and harassment

That any of them are 'in it for the money' is RW propagandist horseshit.

[AllieB]

87. It's none of my business-or yours.

[yellowdogintexas]

108. the day before she's due brings it to induced labor. nt

[spanone]

109. bullshit...

[Stellabella]

112. You must be a guy.

No woman would even consider posting that. That just doesn't happen.

And BTW, women don't go skipping happily off to the doctor, thinking 'oh boy, I get to have an abortion today!'

Late term abortions are performed for medical reasons. The baby is dead, will die a quick painful death after being born, or there's something so wrong it threatens the life and/or health of the mother.

Please educate yourself before you go spouting off like that.

[PeaceNikki]

113. And you don't trust women and their doctors to make decsions?

You "valiant" men have to come in and make them for us?

[JerseygirlCT]

167. You do understand that that almost never happens, right?

And that when it does, (it being a late term abortion) the reason is almost always because the fetus is either already dead, or will die immediately after birth, and/or the mother's health or life is endangered.

Late term abortions aren't done for birth control. You really ought to read up on it a bit - there are many heartbreaking stories of desperately wanted children and women with severely endangered lives. These are the people the right attempts to demonize.

[Hekate]

194. Unfortunately, that is a RW smear and has NEVER been true. At that point it's childbirth...

... with all its attendant pain and dangers.

See my Post #183 below.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3912015&mesg_id=3915362

Hekate

[uppityperson]

199. How about retroactive abortion, like when kids get mouthy or turn into teens?

Or would that be too extremist for you?

[PeaceNikki]

209. I've been trying to push for legislation for abortions into the 75th trimester

:D

[TommyO]

229. If it's medically necessary, absolutely!

[ThomWV]

2. Life begins the minute you can get a social security number

[d_b]

8. you're not a person until

you're in my phone book --Bill Hicks.

[TooBigaTent]

3. A smear of cells is not a child. It is each woman's choice, or should be, as to what SHE wants to

do with HER body.

No other consideration should come into play.

Life begins at birth. Period.

[hedgehog]

103. But what is birth? When the fetus draws breathe? When the head emerges?

When the entire body emerges?

[tavalon]

4. I wouldn't personally have an abortion in the second or third trimester

but I will fight for the right for each woman to decide that for themselves. I want a world in which each child is a wanted child.

[pipi_k]

50. Exactly!!...it's not about what we think someone else

"should" or "should not" do...

abortion at 6 weeks or abortion at 6 months...


I personally wouldn't have an abortion late-term, but it's not up to me to decide what's right or wrong for someone else or what someone else should or shouldn't do.

That's what choice is all about...

[endarkenment]

5. I personally think it is none of your business.

And I also think it is just plain wrong for the government to decide when you can or cannot have an abortion. The third trimester limit is a reasonable and fair compromise that should be left alone.

[Nipper1959]

7. It is very simple

If you look at the tax code. You cannot claim a child until after they are born. Why haven't the rethugs changed that to reflect the conception date? Probably because they do not believe their own bullshit.

Republicans are pro birth, not pro life, they don't give a shit about anyone after their born. Unless they are a big campaign donor!

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. "Probably because they do not believe their own bullshit.!

Of course they don't believe their own bullshit. Just a way to keep their followers in line and voting for them. What fools!

[ThomWV]

13. So being pregnant any part of a year would get you a tax deduction, no matter ...

If you were pregnant on December 31 you could take a deduction for 1 additional dependent even if for whatever reason no live-birth child resulted from the pregnancy. Republican would immediately claim that Democratic deadbeats were purposefully getting pregnant in December to get the deduction and then having abortions in January because they hate life.

[sushi]

10. I can agree

with "the potential," for the first trimester. I watched the Saddleback Forum too. McCain said "at conception" and Obama said, ".......that's above my pay grade." I still don't know what that means exactly.

[yellowdogintexas]

111. Obama said above my pay grade as in.."only God really knows"

and that is above everybody's pay grade.

[radfringe]

11. according to the IRS

it's not a dependent until it's born

[LeftishBrit]

12. In the UK it's at viability (around 24 weeks)

and I'm fine with that definition. After that, abortions are only performed for severe fetal abnormalities or life/ health of the mother (the latter would be be an unusual situation, as normally post-viability one would simply induce labour and treat the child in a special care baby unit).

In fact, despite all the pro-life campaigners' emphasis on late-term abortions, abortions are extremely rare after 20 weeks and uncommon after 12 weeks.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. Viability is only coincidental; what matters is sentience.

At present, it may be coincidentally the case that babies become externally viable at about the same time they become sentient.

But viability is not relevant to abortion, I think. What matters is the point at which a clump of living tissue becomes a self-aware person, which happens at about 24 weeks.

[LeftishBrit]

88. Good point.

In fact, the level of brain development required for possible consciousness is pretty much the same as the level of brain - and lung- development required for a chance of survival with modern intensive care at present. So it's easy to think of them together. But you are right; it is the potential for elementary consciousness and sensation.

Petty pedantic point (I'm a developmental psychologist by profession): *self*-awareness, in the sense of ability to reflect on one's own identity and experiences, doesn't seem to develop until at least the 2nd year of life; according to some theorists, not till the 4th. But the capacity for perception, basic learning, and most crucially, the ability to feel pain, do seem to develop around 24 weeks post-conception.

[sarge43]

14. What woman with a speaking acquaintance with an IQ would have

an abortion in the 2nd or 3rd tri without a compelling medical reason? What competent MD would perform one without a compelling medical reason?

Personally I believe an abortion is solely the business of a woman and her physician. It's a difficult enough decision without involving cheerleaders or naysayers. The last entity I'd want involved is the federal gov't. Currently it can't take care of the problems it should be attending to.

[galaxy21]

20. A doctor in the UK performed a late term abortion on a woman because the fetus had a cleft plate

Although there was a lot of fuss kicked up over that, and there was a lot of arguement over whether it was legal, so I doubt its common.

[LeftishBrit]

21. Definitely not common, and most doctors wouldn't do it...

hence all the controversy.

[sarge43]

28. Against human stupidity or greed the gods themselves prevail in vain.

No law is going to stop it and such laws could do great harm.

[Hekate]

196. Deliberate flame bait. I don't know about the UK, but here that would not be possible.

The more I read your contributions to this issue, the more I believe you are simply causing trouble by promoting this RW lie. Roe vs Wade has many restrictions built into it. Beyond that, thanks to the RW most women in small-town and rural areas of the US no longer even have access to first-trimester abortions because they would have to travel to the closest big city to find a clinic.

Hekate

[uppityperson]

206. At least get your terminolgy right. Here's a visual to help you.

It is called a cleft palate. See the extra "a" there? Here is a visual for you to help you tell the difference.

Plate:



Palate:



Cleft(broken) Plate:



Cleft Palate:



Got it?

[NeedleCast]

15. I'm pretty much against abortion as a mean of birth control

but I am far, far more against the government telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies.

[PeaceNikki]

192. This myth really pisses me off.

"Abortion as a mean of birth control"?

That's unadulterated bullshit. Have you ever had an abortion? It's not a comfortable, pleasant, quick or inexpensive experience.

[Hekate]

198. The only places that happens are where contraceptives are not available or legal...

This can be countries where abortion is legal and available, such as the former Soviet Union and post-war Japan (where, as I indicated, contraceptives were not), or in any country where both abortion and contraception are illegal. In all those cases, abortion becomes the contraception of last resort -- not here.

Hekate

[Tallison]

214. 'Against' how?

In that a woman who treats it as such alters the moral context of her pregnancy, in which case abortion should not be an option? Or in which case she should have the option, but you'd judge her for it? I've never understood the statement you just made, so perhaps you could help me understand it.

[PeaceNikki]

215. It's a myth; a right-wing talking point used to demonize women who make choices they don't like.

[Tallison]

220. Exactly my suspicion

Statements like that keep the door open for moralizing the issue, which is the RW's whole agenda.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

16. I'm a Catholic and I believe life begins at conception but

that is my PERSONAL belief and I would never, ever try to tell someone that if they chose to have an abortion they were going to "burn in hell for that". I believe abortion is a decision that is made by a woman and is between herself, her doctor and God.

I am not God, I'm a human being with faults and therefore I cannot and will not sit in judgement on what another person does with their body.

[GoesTo11]

17. We all know what is physically there

Conception has one living cell containing all the genetic code from both parents contributions, the same code that will be in the person. Physiologically, a cell not a body no nervous system, no nothing other than nucleus, membrane, mitochondria. Later, more cells still just sitting there. Later pre-organs and limbs, later organs and limbs, some neural activity, beating heart. Gradually becoming the baby that is born and the baby becomes the child and then the adult.

It's just about definitions. It is certainly a human cell and living. It is not feeling. Everyone should agree on that. But I think the difference is that some people believe there is a soul and the soul represents the potential person and is there from the moment of conception. You can never prove that one way or another. If you believe in a soul that appears at the moment of conception and lives on to eternity, then I suppose any abortion or even a morning after pill destroys a soul. Or you might think the fetus is cells without a soul and that God breathes the soul upon the cells at the moment of birth. Or you might just think soul is a concept not a real object that attaches to the cells, i.e., that the soul is just a term we use as shorthand to describe the complex and wondrous locus of awareness of a self-contained and self-aware neural system that develops over time. That would mean that souls develop gradually. Morning after pills no problem, 1st semester abortions ok, 2nd semester abortions not so good, 3rd trimester abortions avoid if possible, no infanticide. If you take this view, in addition to trying to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, it would also be worthwhile to provide family planning so that if a pregnancy is going to be terminated, it should happen as early as possible.

In general, history hasn't worked out well when one group of people focuses on saving another group's souls.

[slackmaster]

19. Conception is certainly the start of the life of a genetically unique individual

We as a society have decided that the right of that individual to live does not outweigh its mother's right to terminate the pregnancy until some point between that moment and its birth. The federal (Roe) line protecting the mother's right to terminate is drawn at the end of the first trimester. Beyond that, it becomes an issue for the states.

People don't even have a full complement of rights when they are born, so there is nothing unusual or inconsistent in phasing in the right to live.

I personally don't think women should be having abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimestor unless there's a really good reason for it (health, fetal abnormalities).

Same here. I believe most abortions are done early enough that there is no suffering on the part of the embryo, no loss of consciousness because none yet exists.

...I also think everyone in the pro life cause are total hyporcrites who don't have any great love of life at all.

I think some are hypocrites, some are not.

[galaxy21]

22. Yeah, I should take back 'everyone'

I knew a girl (a nun, now actually) and she hated abortion. But she was anti war and anti death penalty, as well.

What annoys me is all the people who are desperate to stop abortions, were desperate to save terri schiavo....but supported the Iraq war and write off all the deaths (american troops, civilians)as 'collatoral damage'.


Terri schivao matters more than 4000 dead soldiers?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. I am opposed to abortion in most circumstances....

...but am also strongly anti-death penalty and anti-unjustified warfare.

And I'm also 100% in favor of access to contraceptive birth control.

[Stellabella]

117. Then don't have one.

Other than that, it's none of your business.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

160. Bumper sticker soundbites demean the issue. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. I think as soon as a seperate DNA forms, there is a newly developing life....

...and new ethical considerations come into play where it otherwise wouldn't. People who think that abortion is no different than getting a pimple removed are sorely mistaken, IMHO.

I'm not saying that abortion should be prohibited or restricted in all circumstances, but it is an extremely complex issue that should be carefully weighed and balanced as to when it is proper and when it is not.

Personally, though, I think that both the "pro-life" and the "pro-choice" sides are total hypocrites. There are other "lives" than just the life of a fetus, and there are other "choices" than just the choice to have an abortion. People in the abortion debate are too interested in coming up with lame bumper sticker slogans and too little interested in trying to rationally approach the situation and realize that it is not a matter of black and white.

[Lars39]

29. Initial implantation and the continued cooperation of the woman

to continue the pregnancy are the only thing that matters.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

31. I think the problem is....

The abortion rights proponents (i.e. "pro-choice") see the issue as being 100% about the women, while the abortion opponents (i.e. "pro-life") see the issue as being 100% about the unborn child/fetus.

The fact of the matter is that the situation involves both. Until both sides realize that, all we are going to get are dumb bumper stickers.

[Lars39]

34. A woman can die or become disabled from pregnancy and childbirth.

No contest.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. Very true.

And that is such a circumstance where abortion should never be prohibited.

[Lars39]

41. Or a woman might not want to risk it, or just doesn't want a baby.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

44. With modern healthcare being what it is...

...unless the doctors say there is a risk, there shouldn't be a risk.

[Lars39]

54. Risks can develop unexpectedly.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

66. True....

...and that is why there are doctors on hand to deal with such risks, and if there is a significant risk to the life of the mother that develops down the line, the option of terminating in the interests of the mother should never be prohibited.

[galaxy21]

45. I think in the first trimester it should be mainly about woman's wishes

but once you get to 5 or 6 months, you're dealing with another life form/person.

If there's nothing wrong with 2nd/3rd trimester abortions, why do most doctors hate doing them?

I mean, from what I gather, the general consensus amongst abortion doctors is that the ones before 12 weeks are the easiest to do, and after that...it can be difficult for some of them. Both from a medical and emotional standpoint.

[Stellabella]

119. How do you know most doctors 'hate doing them' in the

2nd or 3rd trimester?

I'm sure there are lots of procedures that doctors don't like to do, but they do them because it's medically necessary.

[PeaceNikki]

121. Your data is pulled right out of your ass, isn't it?

[galaxy21]

158. NEVERMIND

the quote was too graphic.

[dysfunctional press]

24. personally, i'm glad that i'm a vasectomized male who won't have to face that decision...

but- as long as you're asking for opinions, here's mine- it's NOBODY'S business except for the two people involved, and ultimately the ONE person involved- the woman carrying the zygote, the embryo, the fetus, the baby-in-waiting, the what have ya...until it becomes 'viable' i.e.- it can survive on it's own outside the womb, it isn't a human life.

but as i said- my opinion is a moot point in the argument.

[murray hill farm]

26. i think that it really does not matter.....

and that to think that it does is to say that humans are more powerful than god. If one believes that god is all powerful, then it does not matter if a woman has an abortion or not. If one believes so strongly in god, then they must also believe that if god wants this particular "soul" to be born into a body, then god will just place it somewhere else to grow into a body. If one has this belief, then one cannot..in good faith...believe that one is more powerful than the god they believe in.

[sharesunited]

27. You can accept that it's life from zygotehood but with rights inferior to those of the woman.

Roe uses viability as the dividing line to determine when the state has a compelling interest in preserving the life of the unborn fetus.

Of course, this approach can also be said to determine when it is permissible to treat a woman as breeding stock and host animal for the state.

[FLAprogressive]

30. I don't believe in late-term abortions.....

....I think the baby is far too developed and it would be cruel to terminate it (barring the life of the mother/rape)....but I think first term abortions are OK as long as the mother is fully informed of all options.

[Hekate]

203. That would be in accordance with existing law. Third term abortion is highly restricted...

... and as it involves labor and the other pains of childbirth is hardly something a woman would do without damn good reason -- like anencephaly.

Hekate

[stewert]

32. Life Begins at Birth

I am 100% pro-choice.

You are not a person until you are born. That means the woman can decide if she wants an abortion and when, it's her body, and her choice. It's none of my business what she does with her body.

I can live with the Supreme Court decision that says no abortion after 6 months, because I have to, it's the law, but I don't agree with it.

If America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, as the Republicans claim it is, then a woman should be free to do whatever she wants with her body, otherwise she is not free, and America is not a free country, as the Republicans claim it is.

Nobody in (or out of) Government should ever tell a woman what to do with her body, ever. And the same goes for prostitution, if a woman wants to sell her body for sex she should be allowed to, or she is not free, and America is not a free country.

Frankly I don't understand why all these right-wing nuts care so much about abortion, and what a woman does with her body. It's none of their business, they should worry about what they do with their own life, and keep their nose out of other peoples business.

[galaxy21]

35. I don't think life begins at conception, but its too easy to say 'life beings at birth'

A few minutes before it was born, it was the exact same baby. Same brain activity, self awareness...etc. Being outside the womb changes the circumstances surrounding the child, but its basicaly the same as it was.

I suppose the arguement is its a control thing, and its her body. And earlier in the pregnancy, that's true. But if your 7 or 8 months along...well, you've already given your body up for a long time, why does an extra month or so matter? (And I'm talking about viable, healthy children here, and no health issues for the mother)

Just stamping the 'life begins at birth' on every arguement seems to be a way of avoiding the difficult questions involved.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

39. "Abortion is murder"/"Keep your laws off my body"

Both oversimplified rhetorical statements by each respective side in the debate that deflect from the deeper ethical issues involved. It's like people don't want to address it, so they just throw out quick soundbites that do little to actually consider the issue.

[galaxy21]

80. I think in the first three months it is very much a choice

You're deciding whether or not to have a baby.

But by the time you get to five or six months, its not whether or not you have it, you've already got it. in a way. Its not a baby exactly, but its really past the point where you can totally disregard it.

[alarimer]

163. Legally, it's the only definition that can work.

Nobody gets a SS card before they are born. They cannot be counted until them. If the legal definition changed, it would cause all kinds of unforseen problems.

Scientifically, no one can answer the question of when human life begins. They can't even determine what life IS. Is a virus alive? Are parasites? I don't know and neither does anyone else. It is a philosophical question that has no business in politics or law. So really, it's best left to the invidual to define as she sees fit. And it is her decision and her decision alone. No one elses.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

97. I Can't Think Of Anything More Disgusting And Vile Than Thinking Aborting An 8mo Unborn Child For

any reason whatsoever is perfectly acceptable.

In fact, I find it to be more disgusting, inappropriate, contemptible, ignorant and evil than anything I've ever heard from the 'right wing nuts' concerning the issue.

[Stellabella]

120. Why don't you try to find ONE case where this actually happened?

Just one.

Bet you can't.

Because that's not what women do.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

133. Oh For Cryin Out Loud Learn How To Friggin Ascertain Context.

It was a DIRECT reply to the previous poster's position and statements. God it's so annoying when someone rushes in and just knee jerk reacts without even a hint of having used the slightest bit of common sense or critical thinking. Jesus.

[Stellabella]

141. Geez, lighten up.

It's kind of difficult to misinterpret your statement.

"I Can't Think Of Anything More Disgusting And Vile Than Thinking Aborting An 8mo Unborn Child For any reason whatsoever is perfectly acceptable.

In fact, I find it to be more disgusting, inappropriate, contemptible, ignorant and evil than anything I've ever heard from the 'right wing nuts' concerning the issue."

So you think that late term abortions are more vile, contemptible and ignorant than the anti-choice crowd says, huh? That's how I read your statement.

So killing OB-GYNs, which is what lots of right wing nuts advocate, is more acceptable for you than a late term abortion?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

164. Are You Really This Thick Headed? Read The Post I Responded To To Begin With.

The poster I responded to felt such a way, and I responded with contempt as we all should. You are knee jerking with your reaction rather than following the actual context, and it makes you look quite silly to me. Try again please, and this time try and follow along, k?

[Hekate]

205. Fortunately, OMC, that's how the law sees it too. 3rd trimester abortions are HIGHLY restricted...

They involve all the labor, pain, and danger of a normal childbirth. They are only done for very extreme reasons -- such as anencephaly, a birth defect that is incompatible with life, considering the brain is completely absent.

Hekate

[ellie]

33. I believe in abortion on demand,

no apologies and no restrictions.

[Tallison]

221. Yep, me too

I have perhaps even more radical beliefs on the issue, but will keep those to myself. :D

[snooper2]

36. Life begins when you can pull the baby out and it lives on it's own

That's when life begins...

Or, just go back 10,000 years before advances in medicine helped keep babies alive...



Actually, I shouldn't be here as I was born with the cord around my throat and not breathing...In a different lifetime I wasn't here ( wrap your head around that one :rofl: )

[Chovexani]

38. It doesn't fucking matter, and stop spreading right wing talking points

WOMEN DON'T HAVE ABORTIONS JUST CAUSE WE'RE "BLUE" AND SHIT.

Again, in case you missed it: WOMEN DON'T HAVE ABORTIONS JUST CAUSE WE'RE "BLUE" AND SHIT.

And you know something? Even if that were true, that is a woman's right. You, the Pope and Mickey Mouse do not get to decide what is a "good reason" or not. Abortion has been going on since there was a pregnant woman who knew what an herb was and has never been an issue except in societies where men wanted to exert control over women.

So STFU and let grown ass women make our own medical decisions. That goes for right wing freakazoids and so-called left wing misogynists who think I need to talk to my "pastor" about it. Forced birthers are woman hating pieces of shit regardless of if they have an R or D after their name. The right to decide whether or not to have one's life irrevocably altered by having a child goes to the most basic of human rights. If you don't think women are human beings instead of broodmares and vessels then fuck you and the paternalistic horse you rode in on.

(And anyone who wants to call me a hysterical feminazi is invited to kiss my black ass. And push for legislation to allow women to be able to vote on if men should be forced to have vasectomies)

[ismnotwasm]

42. Exactly

It doesn't fucking MATTER "when life begins" It's my uterus, it's my body and I want ignorant speculations, laws, and other people's dumbass philosophies and weird religious beliefs OUT of it. And STAY out.

[pleah]

55. I'm with you...and they can kiss my lily white ass, too.

:toast:

[krabigirl]

Exactly.

[galaxy21]

86. Questioning having an abortion at 7 or 8 months makes you Ann Coulter now?

I really think you need to read over this thread. No one questioned having an abortion earlier in the pregnancy. Its just whether or not they should be happening in the 2nd and 3rd trimester without a good reason.

I think in the 2nd, and especially, 3rd trimestor, the fetus has SOME rights. Not equal to the mother, of course. And if giving birth is going to endager her life or there's something seriously wrong with the child, then she has every right to say she wants an abortion.

But if your dealing with a healthy fetus at 22 or 23 weeks. An abortion seems like such a waste. By that point you only have a few months to go and, couldn't the child just be adopted if you didn't want to take care of it?

[Iris]

125. How many abortions do you really think are performed in the 7th or 8th month?

yes. why do you think someone would make a choice like that?

[galaxy21]

156. Obviously they only happens if something is wrong with the child

But, if you'll look elsewhere in thread, there's a lot of debate over what that would/woulnd't be intepreted as.

There are cases where the child is almost certainly going to not live long after birth. I've said before I can understand that. Or if the mother's life is threated.

But what about when you don't know if the child is going to live or not? Or what about other disabilities that might not be life threatening? I think gets difficult after that.

[Iris]

207. which is why it should remain a private decision between a woman and her doctor

and her family if she so desires.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Life begins at conception; *your* life begins at about 24 weeks.

If I were teaching a biology class and not worrying about ethical issues, I'd probably say that the start of a living being's life was when the sperm and egg fused.

However, that's not relevant to the abortion debate.

What gives a human being rights and worth is not being alive, but being sentient. Living things don't have rights; people do.

The point at which a foetus stops being a clump of living tissue and becomes a person is the point at which it gains self-awareness; the best guess at present appears to be that that is around 22-24 weeks. At that point, I think it has some rights, but they should still generally be subsidiary to those of the mother.

Because of that, I think abortion should be legal on demand in the first two trimesters, with no restrictions, and legal in some but not all circumstances (although in nearly all the circumstances that people actually ask for abortions after 24 weeks) after that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. exactly how i feel.

[uppityperson]

56. Exactly. Thank you. 1 addition, anyone who spouts "life begins" needs to define that term first

I agree with what you wrote, and wanted to say you wrote it well. Thank you.

[yardwork]

48. I agree with Barack Obama's answer.

I nodded my head when I heard about his response. Those were the words of an intelligent, thoughtful person.

What human being can say that we truly understand life? When life begins? How does one define life? Is it a set of chemical reactions? At what point does "life" kick in? When does it cease to be a collection of chemicals and begin to be a miracle? What is a miracle? What about the soul? What happens when we die? These questions have puzzled humans since we began. And when did humans begin, anyway? Is there a difference between a human and our nearest relative? What is the difference between animals and humans anyway?

Anyone who claims to have the answer to these questions and can explain them in a two-second sound bite is probably a Republican.

[ejpoeta]

49. I don't look at the life begins at ... argument so much as I look at the

survive outside the womb. But, personally I have never had nor do I envision myself having an abortion. So for me personally it isn't a consideration. But I do not feel it is up to me or anyone else what anyone should believe. Or do. It's about choice. The right for people to decide what they believe and what is right for them. If someone does not believe in abortion, then they should not have one. End of story. It is a very personal decision for any woman to have to make. And it isn't done lightly. But I want to have control over my body and my life. It frightens me to think that someone could legislate their religious beliefs like these people are trying to do.

And, as for what some may think when considering voting for mccain/palin.... I can't help but wonder if folks take things for granted, such as our right to choose and our right to go to a judge to dispute charges and the like. I wonder if people just assume that they are safe and will not be in jeopardy. that scares me more than most anything else. because then they may vote for mccain.

[SidDithers]

51. A woman should have complete and total control over her own body...

and her rights to control her body should outstrip any "right" that might belong to a fetus or a "potential person".

I put no qualifiers, in terms of reason or timing, on a woman's ability to choose an abortion. That decision is a medical decision and should be made only by the woman and her health care providers.

Sid

[Kazak]

52. I defer to Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan on this issue...

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

[bemildred]

53. Abortion should be free and legal. Life never stops.

A fetus is biologically every bit as much a human being as you or I. That's not the issue. The issue is at what point may parents be forced by the law to assume the expense and responsibility of raising the fetus, in other words when does the fetus gain the legal rights of a human being and a citizen? When do the legal and human rights of the fetus come into force and override the legal and human rights of the parents?

[uppityperson]

57. Where do you stand on keeping access to an abortion legal regardless of wealth?

Wealthy people and/or those in power always have access to medically induced abortion under hygienic conditions. Where do you stand on keeping access to such available for all?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. In favour, but it's an entirely different issue.

The contentious issue about abortion is not so much "should it be available", but "should it be banned" - some people think that, independantly of the financial issues, abortion is immoral and should be forbidden.

"Should health-care be available to all, paid for by the state" is a different issue; the answer is "yes", but it's not connected to specifically banning abortion.

[moriah]

58. Some might find my view weird as I am pro-choice, but...

1) Looking at it scientifically, if a bacteria is alive, then a fertilized egg is alive. Since science can't decide if viruses are actually alive or not, I do not believe that sperm and egg cells are "life", as like viruses, they cannot reproduce themselves without the other. And since the fertilized egg contains the human genome, it is human life.

2) Pregnancy, however, does not begin until implantation. Not all embryos implant. Some people give statistics that 75% of fertilized eggs fail to implant. I don't know if that's the right statistic, but it is known that not all embryos implant. I cannot believe that God/Goddess/Whatever puts a soul into every fertilized egg if so many of them die. Therefore, I do not feel that there is anything unethical or morally wrong with using hormonal birth control that prevents implantation, or an IUD. Also, it is not an "abortion" if a fertilized egg does not implant, as abortion is defined as terminating a pregnancy -- the woman is not pregnant until it implants.

3) Most miscarriages happen during the first trimester. If an embryo implants outside of the uterus, as in ectopic pregnancy, it has to be killed or the woman will die. In a molar pregnancy, which is where an egg is fertilized and it will implant, but the genome is so unusual (either all from the male, all from the female, or two copies from one parent and one from the other, instead of the standard half and half) that it will either never produce a fetus and instead produce tissue that can cause cancer, or will create parts of a fetus but never the whole thing, the pregnancy must also be terminated. I cannot accept that a Higher Power would ensoul every single fertilized egg, or for every human that is alive there are likely at least 3 souls that are sitting in Heaven without ever having had the chance to be alive, or sitting in Purgatory if you are Catholic.

--------

So, for me, the religious question is when is a fetus/embryo ensouled? I personally am Pagan, and I believe in reincarnation. So I believe that the souls of aborted children get another chance at life, if in fact they are ensouled.

At the scientific level, the first measurable brain activity is in the 12th week, at least as far as science has been able to go at this point.

But until a fetus can survive on its own, it is not a fully separate and independent human life, and the mother's health (both mental and physical) do take precedence.

---------

So my view on the ethics of the situation is this:

1) If you don't want to get pregnant, please use birth control. I do not believe that abortion or the morning-after pill should be a primary form of birth control -- primarily because it is much harder on the woman to have an abortion or take the MAP than it is to take a hormonal contraceptive, get an IUD, or use condoms.

2) If you get pregnant and wish to have an abortion, I think the decision should be made as early as is humanly possible. There is no need to wait any longer than is absolutely necessary, and the earlier in the pregnancy the less likely that the embryo/fetus will feel pain or have brain activity.

3) If a woman waits until the fetus could be viable before deciding she wishes to terminate the pregnancy, I think that she should have the right to decide at what time she no longer wishes to be pregnant. However, I think that the method chosen should be either hysterotomy (essentially a c-section) or birth, and that the child be kept alive as much as is possible and a couple looking to adoption can pay for the medical care for the child, and adopt it if it lives. I do support the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act type thing, but I think that the funding for the medical care for the severely premature infants should be paid by the government or a potential adoptive family, not the mother.

4) The decision should be between the woman, her doctor, and her God (not necessarily MY God.)

[sweetpotato]

59. Its really about punishing women for having sex

In the patriarchal fundie system: a baby = women's punishment for sex.

The whole Eve story is about punishing women for learning things. (tree of knowledge of good and evil and all that - the *curse* of menstruation, pain during childbirth - ALL PUNISHMENTS for the sin of wanting knowledge)

That's why they only seem to *care* about the fetus. Its because the fetus is God's way of punishing women for having sex, being women, the whole Eve thing, etc. You must protect the fetus because God wants men to punish women for having sex. Its women's fault men even want to have sex in the first place (see Eve again). Jezebels, all of us.

Its really very easy to understand.

Unless you are of the approved race, religion and political party, you shouldn't be having sex at all.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

62. No, that's not actually how real people think.

You're making the mistake of believing your own propaganda.

Most people who oppose abortion do so for the reasons they state - they think that a zygote is still a human, and so killing it is wrong.

If you deliberately misrepresent your opponents for political ends, and then come to believe your own misrepresentation, you lose the ability to understand and hence effectively oppose them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

79. Exactly!!!!

Until there is an actual attempt at dialogue, instead of calling the other side "anti-life" or "anti-choice" and leaving it at that, all we are going to get is a shouting match over who is supposedly "correct" when it comes to the situation, and by what authority they supposedly deem themselves to be "correct."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. I think "anti-choice" is a fair attack, actually.

They clearly are anti-choice, and wouldn't deny it; they'd say that it's a choice that women shouldn't have.

But we should acknowledge that the reasons they oppose allowing women that choice are, largely, the ones that they give for it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

136. My problem with "choice" is that it is an overbroad term. Everything we do as humans is a choice.

"Life", too. You can say you are "Pro-Sunshine" and "Pro-Puppy" and then claim that those who disagree with you are "Anti-Sunshine" and "Anti-Puppy." It's essentially the same thing.

To avoid confusion and rhetorical fluff, we should recognize that in the end, the issue is about one thing: abortion. Not "life." Not "choice." It's about abortion.

The way I see it, those who believe abortion is a guaranteed legal rights are "pro-abortion rights." Note, they are not necessarily "pro-abortion." They may not like abortion or ever have an abortion themselves. But they do advocate maintaining abortion as a legal right. Hence, the are "pro-abortion rights" or "abortion rights proponents."

Those who oppose abortion and do not believe it should be a legal right are "anti-abortion" or "abortion opponents." Not "pro-life" unless they value life (and argubly the quality of life) in all of its stages. Not "anti-choice" as they aren't necessarily opposed to what car you choose to drive, what clothes you choose to wear or what breakfast cereal you choose to eat in the morning.

It's about abortion. The word makes many uncomfortable, but that is the topic of the debate.

[napi21]

60. Whatever I believe regarding abortion is based upon my religious teachings,

and has NO PLACE in politics!!!!! I very strongly believe in separation of church & state, and that each person is free to believe whatever they want! I don't want anyone else forcing their religious beliefs on me, and I would NEVER force Mine on anyone else!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. The abortion debate is still about sex.

The right still believes that the only valid reason for women to have sex is to have babies. Usually portrayed as cute little gurgling blue-eyed babies. Naughty women have sex because they enjoy it and don't necessarily want babies to prove their good intentions.

Of course, men are exempt from the "moral" strictures that demand that women be punished for being naughty by carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term because a) they can't have babies, and b) well...boys will be boys.

The absurdity of the "argument" is that "naughty" women, because they are naughty, will wait until the 2nd/3rd trimester to have an abortion.

It's the age old argument that women are evil and thus inferior to men who have the right to make them "good" by punishing them and denying their humanity...for their own good of course.

The question of "when life begins" may be interesting philosophically. but has little relevance to the reality that women don't wait to the last moment to have abortions because they're immoral or lazy. They have late term abortions because they're either medically necessary, or the woman has put off a crucial decision in her life out of fear. (i.e., a teenager whose parents disapprove of abortion).

The debate isn't about "life", it's about whether women are free moral agents capable of making decisions about their lives and how they choose to live them.

[RB TexLa]

64. I believe my control over it ends if I allow a woman to have my sperm, so I do not allow that to

happen.

[Generic Other]

65. Fuck it...women are the deciders

You want to pop litters like a goddamn dog, be my guest. You and no one else decides for me. Law or no. A fertilized egg is a guest in my womb...I decide when and if I have a child. And personally, I'd rather abort any fetus of mine than hand it over to a nutcase fundie to screw up raising.

Also, who would want to bring any children into this messed up place? It almost seems to rise to the level of child abuse in and of itself!

[Bluenorthwest]

67. Any government

that has the power to say 'you can not do X' automatically has the power to say 'you must do X'...the actual crux of the whole issue is not really choice or anti-choice, it is about WHO has the power of the choice-the government or the person. It is about who owns us, in essence.
Now I'd also like to note that the actual Biblical view as traditionally understood is that life begins, or rather an individual human exists, at the first draw of breath. The Breath of Life. In the creation story, for example, the first man was made up and fully formed as an adult body, but he did not become Adam, a person, until the diety Himself breaths into him the breath of life. So Adam before the breath was not yet alive, and not a person. Many traditions based on that story take the breath as the time of the start of life.
But really, unless we are talking about my body, by opinion is invalid. As is the government's.

[tburnsten]

68. Pro-choice, but not a fan of it at all

My mother had one after myself and my little brother, but before my little sister. She is clearly still dealing with it seventeen years later. I also strongly believe that there has to be some realistic cut-off point in a pregnancy where it becomes too late to get it terminated. My mother almost died giving birth to my sister, was it because of her prior abortion? I can't think of a single reason it wouldn't be.

I will probably get flamed for that, but after it has survived past some point in the pregnancy, just give it up for adoption. There are many loving couples out there who want nothing more than a child, but can't have their own biologically.

[krabigirl]

70. Pro-choice, but I think abortion belongs out of politics.

It's a choice between a woman and her doctor. As for when life begins, I honestly can't say. Conception perhaps, but so many zygotes don't implant, so I'd have to say implantation. I wouldn't personally have a second or third trimester abortion, though.

[demgurl]

71. I have had an abortion.

I am pro-choice even though I would not have an abortion again. My religion forbids harm and so if I followed this rule I would not be allowed to do that again. I would never be arrogant or egotistical enough to pretend to know what is right for others. I am not a deity so I may not judge anyone else for their choices. I have enough on my plate to work on my own errors and my own weaknesses. I do what is right for me and I let others judge what is right for them. By the way, do I regret my abortion? No!

[Ezlivin]

72. If it's a visible baby I have difficulties...

If, however, someone shows me a tiny drop of fluid and tries to convince me that a baby is in it, I'll have to disagree.

What I find ironic is that the anti-choice crowd tends to be anti-scientific, yet they must use science to back their claims. There is not a human alive who can look at a day-old embryo and even see it! No one would know it even exists if it weren't for the instruments of science. But now that science has entered into this formerly hidden realm and uncovered the processes at work there, some religious people claim that their "god" would be against the termination of this clump of cells.

I understand a person's reticence to abort a fetus that is visible and appears to be a tiny baby. I could understand protesting the abortion of late-term fetuses. But I don't see the problem with the destruction of a clump of cells that are invisible to the unaided human eye.

In the end, however, I firmly believe the choice lies with the woman and her doctor.

[bamacrat]

73. I feel that life begins when an organism is no longer attached to its host like a parasite.

That make sound a bit harsh but a baby cannot live outside the womb until it is carried to term. Im in favor of putting a time limit for abortions, seeing as how a child could possibly live outside the womb during the third trimester, that should be the cut off. Up till the 6 month point a woman should retain the right to chose what to do with her body. If she waits too long, you snooze you lose, at which point, barring a medical problem that jeopardizes teh mothers life, adoption would be a good avenue. Also I think abortions should be done to save womens lives, I do not understand the idea that it is better to sacrifice a viable adult, a wife, a member of society just to save the baby she is carrying. If the woman lives she can have another baby, if the baby lives and the mother dies a family has to pick up the pieces, a husband has to adjust to being a single father, a company is without a worker, society has one less productive member.

[TahitiNut]

74. Human rights are SUPERIOR to the state, NOT subordinate to it.

Thus, each person is SOVEREIGN over their own body and any and all violations of this are an abrogation of human rights. The state has NO compelling or legitimate interest in the contents of a woman's womb. Until there is an INDIVIDUAL ("emigrated" from the womb), civil interest is solely vested in the mother.

It makes no difference whatsoever what one "BELIEVES" (that's faith/religion, not objective reality).

[semillama]

155. That's it in a nutshell. It's not about life but about individual control over one's own body.

Great post. It was what I was going to say but you said it better.

[tosh]

75. The bumper sticker said it all for me,

"KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY".

I am reasonably intelligent and capable of making my own choices based on my individual circumstances.

I would hope that "we" could arm all young women in our society with the knowledge and resources to prevent them from ever being faced with having to make this decision. If circumstances lead to an individual's choice for the termination of a pregnancy, that procedure should be accessible and SAFE.

I am personally comfortable with limitations on the procedure beyond the first trimester, but I think the medical community is capable of covering that.

What I'm wondering about lately is how many of these PRO-LIFERS are opening their arms & hearts to adopt/foster/support the results of their policies. I don't see that happening. If they have their way, what next?? Will we (society) handle this the way we handle the millions of unwanted pets or will we just ignore it and thus broaden the economic divide?

It is this short-sightedness that frightens me the most about the RW. I don't see evidence that "they" ever look ahead to the consequences of their desires.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

78. Bumper stickers are everything that is wrong with the abortion debate.

Including the one you mentioned. "Abortion is murder" is another one that makes my skin crawl.

It reduces the entire issue to an inane soundbite based solely on emotion. It does nothing to actually address the situation and instead gives the person parrotting the slogan some sort of satisfaction for believing as they do without really allowing them to understand why they believe as they do.

I detest, detest, detest the entire abortion "debate" so long as both sides express no desire to actually acknowledge the complex moral questions that underly the issue.

[tosh]

82. PeterU, you obviously did not read my post.

You only responded to my subject line.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

132. You're trying to sum up your entire position on the issue...

...by quoting a $0.99 bumper sticker. That's all that your post really boiled down to.

[tosh]

178. Concisely.

B-)

[MiniMe]

84. I like the one that says

If you are a Man and you are Anti Abortion, get a vasectomy.

[tosh]

85. I like that one too!

[InkAddict]

76. I am Pro-Choice...

The woman and her doctor should make that decision; it's a life-changing event to bear and raise a child with or without the assistance of a partner, wedded or not. What chance does a child have who is neither loved nor wanted, and how many of us were blessed by an unknown woman who wanted the experience of creating life, but then selflessly placed that child with a caring family that she nor the father could provide, and for whatever the future would hold. Abstinence coming from a responsible discipline, commitment, self-control, belief is a good thing in itself, but so are the hormones that bring partners together in relationships so our species will continue. I'm a reasonable, practical, prudent person who is also willing to accept that that choice should be available to those that carry the future. Fully realizing the risks either way is generally the mark of the rationale and lawful, though also perhaps willfully selfish, but who am I to judge the outcomes since I think I'm here to learn, share, love, and guide as best I can, and it's MY choice how that happens in context with others who I hope can be persuaded to share those goals to learn, share, love, and guide.

[flvegan]

81. As a man, I stand behind the belief that it's the woman's choice.

It honestly doesn't matter what I think about abortion and when life begins.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. I Firmly Believe Life Begins At Conception And Have Personally Always Felt That To Be A No-Brainer.

What has always been up for issue in my mind is the extent that rights should be afforded such and at what given times they should be afforded. Though I believe life firmly begins at conception, I also am intelligent enough to understand that in the early stages there is no awareness within the forming child that it is alive, so that's where complexities of the debate begin for me. I don't view the early stages of the life to be equivalent to the latter stages etc. Though it's life, it's not a 'person' yet. But I do still consider it, for all intents and purposes, to be 'life'.

I compare it to a cake so to speak. Once all ingredients are added and mixed in order to make a cake and it's put in a pan in a heated oven, there would be nothing inaccurate whatsoever with calling it a cake that's baking. Once the baking time is up, it's now a fully baked cake that can be interacted with. But even though while it was baking it generally wasn't interacted with and wasn't fully tangible or recognizable, it was still an unbaked cake. Some could also look in the oven as it's baking and forcefully declare "that's not an unbaked cake! That's just a bunch of ingredients thrown together!", and though they might be accurate in stating that as well, I'd consider it to be just contrariness and petty spin in a sense, since there'd be nothing objectionable whatsoever about calling it a cake that's baking or an unbaked cake.

Though maybe not the best or most directly equatable analogy, it's good enough.

[The Straight Story]

95. Only difference is

We can eat the cake when it's done :)

[LibGranny]

91. I'd prefer "they" be called anti-abortion rather than Pro-Life

If the repubs can in good conscience continue sending young men/women to fight a war with a country that didn't attack us (nor did they have WMD as claimed), it demonstrates that they do not consider the lives of those young people. Why should a fetus have a greater right to life than a young adult? I'm not pro-abortion, just pro-choice depending on the circumstances. I'm a child of the 60's and knew girls who went to desperate measures to abort fetuses they didn't want, i.e., throwing themselves down flights of stairs, taking hot baths, drinking vile liquids. Some of these measures worked and some didn't but one girl subsequently married her boyfriend and then was unable to conceive for YEARS. Karma's a bitch!

[Greyhound]

93. What makes you think you have the right to decide what is right for anybody else, period?

Your opinion, and mine, are irrelevant except to each of us respectively.

Your question is already based in a false premise, and it is that premise that must be rejected, that being that the government has the right to decide and legislate based on that decision. Give up the premise and the debate becomes academic and our lives are run by whatever power base happens to be in power at the moment.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

107. I believe the word you're looking for is "Democracy".

The idea of democratic society is that the majority can and should make laws against any practice they consider sufficiently ammoral to warrant banning.



When advancing a line of argument, it's always worth checking that it doesn't lead to clearly absurd conclusions. Yours does - as well as making laws against abortion wrong, it also makes all other laws wrong.

If you want to qualify it somewhat - e.g. "laws should only govern interaction between people, not things people do that only affect themselves" then you could get round that (although you'd then have to be against all drug laws, unless you qualified it still further), but then you end up right back at "what is a person" and "when does life begin".

[Greyhound]

122. Not at all, any more than the false premise you constantly try to inject in your liberal baiting.

Nice try, now go away like the good little automaton you are.

[NC_Nurse]

94. I believe that a fetus is not an individual human being until it is viable

OUTSIDE the womb. Of course, due to modern science, that can be considered earlier - that is if you believe in
extraordinary measures to keep them alive. The time at which a fetus is generally viable without extraordinary measures is
usually 24 weeks. I think abortion should be nobody's business until then. Many genetic anomalies cannot be detected until the
second trimester and I believe that it should be the mother's choice as to whether she continues the pregnancy as well.

If a baby dies as a result of attempts to save the mother's life, that is a valid thing in the third trimester. Otherwise, it's too late, IMO.
By then, you're most of the way there and you can give the child up for adoption if you want.

Just my opinion, of course.

[leftofthedial]

96. I think there are already WAY too many people on this planet

and that consequently the value of life has plummeted.

Life begins at birth. Anything that happens to a fetus prior to birth is a medical issue between the woman (her loved ones) and the doctor.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

98. In the Jewish religion, the child doesn't have a soul until after it's born.

Personally, I don't know.

[B Calm]

99. How many abortions were there before Roe vs Wade? It doesn't

matter what I think, there will always be abortion. Legal or illegal.

[romulusnr]

100. "life" is not relevant

"life" is an inadequate criteria, and that is the problem with the whole argument. "When does life begin" is a trap, it's a leading question.

If you have a conjoined twin, is that "life" and does it therefore have a right to be kept alive? What about a teratoma? That's sustained human cellular tissue. Should these things be put on life support after being removed or should their hosts be legally prohibited from removing them at all?

"life" or even "human life" isn't the appropriate criteria. Independently viable life? That's adequate criteria. A fetus isn't a person until it is independently viable. An embryo is not independently viable.

Pro-lifers try to base their arguments in some sort of logic, but they fail. Ultimately they are demagogic, tying "fetus" to "baby" and "child" and then proceeding from that unfounded precept based largely on the moral value of protecting children and appealing to the notion that babies are precious. It doesn't hurt to try and project this fetus-person paradigm onto people's own children and make a logical leap. People will always put their own feelings ahead of logic whenever possible. Demonization mixed with that doesn't hurt, either ("they want to kill our children"). Everyone's afraid of the bogeyman; this has been true since... well, probably the beginning of time, which explains damn near every horrible development in human history up to and including the GWOT (on both sides).

[bunkerbuster1]

101. Remember the actual, loaded question was: "When Does a Baby Get Human Rights?"

My only wish is that Obama had said "A baby gets human rights at birth. Prior to birth, the woman carrying a fetus or embryo has rights that must be taken into account."

It would've been a teaching moment about Roe v. Wade, with the potential to re-direct the issue to the stage where around 90% of all abortions take place--in the first trimester.

The Saddleback freaks wouldn't have liked it, but tough shit. Most Americans are fine with Roe and don't want it overturned.

[alarimer]

102. Life begins at birth.

That is when you are counted as person and not before. Now, technology is making it easier or more likely for very early pre-term babies to survive. I am not sure that is always such a good thing, since they tend then to have a lot of health problems. But if I were to decide the cutoff point for abortion, I would choose the point in pregnancy where most babies are likely to survive without extreme measures. I am no expert in these things so I could only hazard a guess as to when that might be.

But life does not actually begin at conception. In a very real sense, life is a continuation. All cells in the body are (at one point) "alive", even the sperm and ova, so just because they are not joined, it does not mean they are not "alive". But I suppose the argument is that when does human life begin and I say it begins at birth. That is the only point in which a person is an individual and, as such, counted in the census or for income tax purposes as a dependent and when they go on insurance rolls. Not one minute before birth do any of those things occur. Prior to birth, a fetus is not really a separate entity.

[mmonk]

104. My opinion is whether conception is the beginning of human life

is not the argument. The practicality of it being illegal or legal is and determining the answer through the use of reason. Since criminalizing it doesn't stop it, the absoluteness of the pro-life position is weakened.

[hedgehog]

105. I have a personal, visceral horror of abortion. That said, I can't tell you

when life begins. What is one to make of the phenomenon of conjoined twins? Was one twin the original, and the other added on layer? I also know that any attempt to regulate abortion will apply to the poor and not to the rich.

I'm with the Democratic PArty on this one. Instead of debating abortion, make sure women have a real choice by ensuring access to health care, access to family planning, equal wages, family leave, access to child care, access to higher education, etc, etc. Those are areas we as a society can and must address!

[stuntcat]

106. sure life begins at conception

Consumption begins at conception too. I can't talk about this rationally because I'm hoping for a HUGE natural disaster soon so the Earth and the animals might get a chance :)

[stuntcat]

162. (btw I think abortion's a fantastic thing)

Anything that stops more greedy bald monkeys from making it to adulthood.
I suppose my subject line was misleading and I've noticed people are getting very emotional and bitter in this thread. Since the point of this was to post opinions I want to clear mine up :)

[PeaceNikki]

110. I think that ALL anti-choice laws should be repealled.

Long, but a great read.

(PDF) http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/repeal.pdf

No country needs to regulate abortion via criminal or civil law. Only when abortion has the same legal status as any other health procedure can it be fully integrated into women’s reproductive healthcare.

by Joyce Arthur

The repeal of abortion laws is supported by evidence from Canada, the only democratic country in the world with no laws restricting abortion since 1988. Abortions have since become earlier and safer, and the number of abortions has become moderate and stable. Current abortion care reflects what most Canadians are comfortable with, and women and doctors act in a timely and responsible manner, with no need for regulation.

Several legal arguments help build the case for abortion law repeal. A constitutional guarantee of women’s equality can be used to overturn abortion laws, and ensure that abortion is funded by the healthcare system as a medically-required service. Freedom of religion, the right to privacy, and the right to self-defense can also be used to strike down laws. All anti-abortion restrictions are unjust, harmful, and useless because they rest on traditional religious and patriarchal foundations. Laws kill and injure women, violate their human rights and dignity, impede access to abortion, and obstruct healthcare professionals.

Solutions for Repealing Anti-abortion Laws
Here’s some suggested solutions to get rid of harmful anti-abortion laws:
* Guarantee women’s equality in countries’ constitutions.
* Collect evidence of laws’ harms, find plaintiffs, and challenge laws in court.
* Lobby government against abortion restrictions (meet with legislators, submit briefs).
* Educate media, government, health professionals, and public about the harm and futility of abortion restrictions.
* Challenge the religious basis of anti-abortion laws, and keep church and state separate.
* Change the rhetoric: Abortion is not a “necessary evil.” Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
* Empower women in society by changing public policies.
* Change patriarchal attitudes about women and motherhood through advocacy and education.
* Prioritize childcare and child-rearing as a universal concern, not a “woman’s issue.”

Some of these proposed solutions are obviously very difficult and would take many years. But one has to start somewhere.

To conclude, no country needs any laws against abortion whatsoever. We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that’s all we need to regulate the process.

[marlakay]

115. Its a hard issue for me as is with most americans

I believe in choice but I guess up to a point. I agree with you that the choice is in the beginning, when it gets to the point where the baby could live outside the womb i think its wrong.

I used to be a strong pro lifer in my 20's & 30's when i was going to radical church, I have changed over the years. I am more open minded but not all the way. Not open minded to want a late term abortion unless the life of the mom was at stake.

[PeaceNikki]

118. Also, the term "Pro-life" is bullshit. It's ANTI-CHOICE

[easttexaslefty]

123. Abortion should be legal

hopefully, someday they will be rare.{because of sex-education}

[RainDog]

126. I think the Roe v. Wade trimester distinction works

In the first three months, there is no viable existence apart from the female. A blastocyte is a potential human but is not yet sentient nor has cell division occurred that deferentiates into what we perceive as a human. At that point, abortion is between a woman and her doctor.

In the second three months, there is a developed fetus. If this fetus is already dead in the uterus, or has spinal bifida, etc. and will die shortly after birth, then I think a family and a doctor has a right to make a decision on abortion based upon their lives. No need to take a fetus to term that is not viable.

In the third trimester, the fetus is now capable of sustaining life outside the uterus and its life is co-equal with the mothers. In this case, the life of the mother could be considered a reason to abort.. if a woman has three other children and would likely die from another birth, this is a case in which I could see a family would consider abortion. Otherwise, outside of the most EXTREME circumstances, no abortion should be allowed.

All of this is predicated on the idea that females have access to birth control information and methods prior to conception, including the "morning after" pill that could routinely be available in emergency rooms in cases of rape or incest. In the case of rape or incest, the same trimester divisions would apply. If someone does not want the child in such a situation, if they did not abort in the first trimester, they could put the child up for adoption.

If someone has an abortion, that someone should be able to have a birth control implant immediately afterward to prevent future unwanted pregnancies. Birth control should be CHEAP and easily available.

If someone carries a baby to term, health care for mother and child should be CHEAP and easily available. Life doesn't begin and end at conception. Those who believe in no abortion, imo, should therefore support socialized medicine/employment/funding for single mothers and children. Anything less is a failure to bring such ideas to fruition.

I think it's important for people to acknowledge that before abortion, children of all classes were left to die in the open air if they weren't wanted and/or a family could not afford the child. Is a child being eaten by wild animals okay because that's the historical practice? You cannot pretend this did not happen, because it did.

In addition, families would send children to wet nurses who might starve a child if she didn't get paid enough, or if she took on too many children because of her own poverty.

In addition, there were controversies about babies who died because they were smothered in their sleep by "accidents" that happened too often to be considered accidents. This was another way that babies were killed after birth, far into the 1800s, and probably beyond.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/6/82.06.03.x.html

Birth control has been in use since recorded time. Diaphragm-like mixes of herbs and assorted crap (sometimes literal animal crap) were used in ancient times.

Condoms have been available since... long ago. They were "tied" on. Respectable people objected to them because they feared women would have sex if they knew they had less chance of getting pregnant. Then as now, birth control issues have revolved around a desire to punish women for having sex.

If we could get beyond this idea that it's okay to punish women for having sex, we would do our society a lot of good b/c it would make birth control easier to use... sometimes birth control isn't used to "pretend" a female didn't really plan or want to have sex but was just taken up by the moment and therefore wasn't a "bad girl." This b.s. needs to go the way of the dinosaur.

If the Victorians could have accepted condom use, more people at the time would not have gone insane and died from syphilis, which was a HUGE cause of health problems and deaths for males and females who were infected by their partners. Western Europe knew, in the 16th c. that condoms prevented venereal disease.

So, to me, the whole issue of abortion isn't just about an abortion, per se. It is part of a larger issue - acknowledging, honestly, that throughout human history, even in the U.S. until the 1900s, abortion was a common practice. Since it has been a common practice, what can we do to make it rare, considering the advances we have in technology and education?

People who insist abortions did not happen and will not happen w/o state sanction are lying to themselves and others, and if they really care about women, they'll work together to find ways to make conception as wanted as possible in whatever circumstances.

[Evoman]

127. I'm anti-abortion but pro-baby killing. It's the only consistent position.

No, but seriously....I think it's a decision that should be made by a pregnant woman, and only a pregnant woman. Not only that, but I think that as soon as men, especially conservative men, get involved in the debate, they should be retroactively aborted.

[cynatnite]

128. The cut off for me is after sixteen weeks...

the potential for survival outside the womb is at a much higher rate.

Prior to that...I'm not convinced that it is a life. Sometimes I'm not even sure what life or what being alive even is.

Abortions going into the second and third trimesters are rare. They are mostly done when the mother's life is at risk or the fetus is dead or dying. The right politicizes these to their advantage without regard to the repercussions to the women who are suffering such a horrific tragedy.

I agree with you about Obama. He should have said the best way to stop abortion is to stop the need for it by working to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Plus, he had no business going to that damn church.

[lonestarnot]

130. Where I personally stand and that is no one elses fucking business.

[Jax]

137. What a right wing bullshit post

Typical.

And I see the "pro life" bullshit responses are from the same old right wing talking heads.

It's none of your effing business.

Pathetic post.

[zoff]

139. I read somewhere ...

about a right wing agenda, which was to render liberalism as a non-political option. On that agenda was the privatization social security. I believe that this argument, of when life begins, is an attempt to marry religion and government, another objective of the right wing. McCain himself that this country was founded on judeo-christian values. I am sure that he and his handlers could spin this to mean something less benign. But it is clear that the right wing does not believe in the separation of church and state. As a god-fearing catholic, I am far enough removed from the horror of the crusades, but it sends chills up my spine to know that millions were slaughtered in the name of my God. I would prefer to have government NOT intervene in ANY consensual bedroom activity and consequences thereof, the true meaning of "small government." Men (as a gender) in general, should leave this for women to decide. Unless you have been in a situation where you and your wife had to decide for yourselves or for your daughter, stay out of the argument and do not speculate. Right wingers should drop the argument altogether until they can prove they tried to prevent the slaughter of innocent Iraqi(and vietnamese etc etc children, the point being, save ALL children.)

[merh]

140. What I find most comical about the "life begins at conception" crowd

is they are the one that shout against too much government.

How on god's green earth do they propose to legislate or regulate life if their position is accepted?

After sex, am I to call and report my activities to the Conception Registrar? Is it enough that I call and report my sex or will I have to report that I am very fertile and the timing is right and the potential for success high? Does my partner have to report our activities as well?

Do we all have to get our driver's licenses changed to reflect date of conception as well as date of birth? Do we have to anniversaries two celebrate and what does it do for tax purposes?

If I report the potential for conception, if I lose the baby, do I risk criminal charges because I didn't carry to term?

And for the Christians that claim jewish would oppose abortion, he was a Jew and Jewish law provided that life began when the child took it's first breath. He would turn to all the "pro-life" crowd and tell them to throw the first stones if they had never had sex for pleasure, if they never masturbated, if they never used contraceptives. The kingdom he offered is not of this world and his judgment is not of this world, his message was a message of love and forgiveness, he taught us not to judge and that we are not the judges of each other, only God can judge.

And more importantly for the holier than thou fundies, they should pay heed to the commandments, teaching false messages, teaching against God's laws and what Jesus taught violates the commandments, it is taking the Lord's name in vein in a way that is far worse than any curse or cuss word.

[MANative]

153. I believe that life begins at viability, the point at which the fetus

can survive outside the mother's body, which is typically a little over 7 months or so after conception. But I also believe that it's everybody's right to their own beliefs, as long as they don't try to infringe upon my beliefs about the whole thing. Keep your (figurative) hands off my body, and I'll keep mine (figuratively) off of yours.

[THUNDER HANDS]

161. life begins at 40

i read that somewhere.

So any abortions under 40 years old are fine by me.

[RainDog]

177. LOL. thank you n/t

[Liberalatus]

165. This is a confusing issue for me...

I would say that I am Pro-choice, but I don't know why. I agree with Obama, as he says that we cannot know when "Life" begins. But I do believe that if you stop, interrupt, or prevent the "process" of formation of the life/being, than that is very close to the definition of "killing". Sort of like allowing someone to starve to death, when you have the ability to help them. You aren't directly ending their life, but you aren't doing anything to keep them from dying, either.

And to all those that say the Gov't should have no say, I disagree. I think we, as society, have to come together, and decide what is considered morally acceptable or not. I suppose that is one way for me to accept it, as it's already been decided. Although I am personally religious, I believe whole-heartedly in Separation of Church and State. But we do have to decide on laws to keep society functioning. And for me personally, the laws should be in protection of others and their rights. Everything else is unneccesary. I just really have a hard time accepting that a woman's right to her body (more specific definition of what all that entails might make the difference), is more important than the right of the life to continue to develope into a "viable" being. Some might say that there is no "guarantee" that that life will ever become viable, but I would assert that that is the most likely outcome, and that when it comes to human life, should we not err on the side of caution?

I don't mean to be "preachy", just expressing my thoughts like everyone else. I mean no offense to anyone, especially women. Sorry if it comes off that way.

[Lars39]

168. You are anti-choice if you don't believe that the woman's life

takes precedence over that of the fetus.

[Liberalatus]

170. That's not exactly what I said, though...

I said I don't think the woman's right to her body is more important than the life of the fetus. I would say that the woman's life takes precedence over the fetus's life, though. Although, philosophically, to say one's life is more important than another seems wrong, in some way, but I cannot say how. However, I stand by my personal opinion that the mother's life is more important.

[RainDog]

175. no. this decision is made all the time

the problem is that no one wants to admit it.

a soldier on the front lines has a life that is less important than Bush's, for instance. The entire govt. has decided that Bush's life, not simply being, but the life he presently enjoys, is more important than hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of soldiers lives since he has not been arrested and charged with war crimes for starting a war of aggression based upon lives.

A mother who has lived and who takes care of others is routinely considered a more valuable life than a fetus. That's simply the truth. Whose death would cause more suffering? A new born baby's or the mother who takes care of that baby and her other children, who is the life partner of her husband, who cooks, goes to work and volunteers?

This is the sort of thing that people are afraid to be honest about in the real world. But this is reality.

you may think it's wrong (I do, in the case of Bush. I don't in the case of the mother) but that's reality.

[PeaceNikki]

172. Interesting that you threw in an anti-contraception statement in there, too.

But I do believe that if you stop, interrupt, or prevent the "process" of formation of the life/being, than that is very close to the definition of "killing".

So... every sperm is sacred?

[Liberalatus]

174. No, sorry if that was confusing...

Albeit, it does sound contradictory. But no, I don't see how every sperm or egg on its own is sacred. I meant the process after conception. I am all for contraception, as well as education, and believe that is the most effective and intelligent way to reduce the number of abortions/unwanted pregnancies.

[RainDog]

176. then you do not believe this:

But I do believe that if you stop, interrupt, or prevent the "process" of formation of the life/being, than that is very close to the definition of "killing".

This is your earlier statement. If you do believe this, then you oppose any form of birth control other than abstinence.

I find that position (not saying it's yours) insane. There is nothing about it that makes sense from the perspective of biology. that is purely a religious belief. It has nothing to do with starving a person, either, if a woman takes a morning after pill that may or may not stop a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus. Same with an iud.

So, do you hold the position that birth control is the equivalent of starving a child?

[Liberalatus]

182. I see the problem...

It's my fault for using the wrong word. The wrong word I used was "formation". I don't mean the initial formation of life, as in using contraceptives to prevent conception. Like I said, I whole-heartedly support contraception. I mean the process of growing, from conception forward. That is a biological process, and to interrupt that process is very similar, if not equal to killing, if only indirectly. I don't hold the position that BC is equivalent to starving a child, but I'd say having an abortion is similar. If you deny a biological process that is neccessary for survival, such as feeding someone, than you effectively terminated their life, even though you didn't physically kill them yourself. I see abortion as along the same lines. There is a biological process, (embryogenesis, organogenesis, etc) and interrupting that process is effectively terminating that life, which, to me, seems very similar to, if not equal to killing. Sorry for the confusion.

[RainDog]

184. an iud (interuterine device) prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.

each month a woman may or may not have a fertilized egg. The iud prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. A woman would not know if she has a fertilized egg or not each month. She would only know that no egg implanted in her uterus.

Is this the equivalent of starving?

A morning after pill may serve essentially the same function... someone may or may not be pregnant when they take it. Either way, a woman will have a period. Is this the equivalent of starving?

both interrupt a biological process.

birth control pills create a condition in which a female body thinks it is producing hormones at levels that is not, in fact, producing them. Levels that mimic pregnancy. An egg is then expelled rather attached because the body does not accept that egg. This is a biological process that is interrupted.

I am saying these things in order to understand your position and to ask if you understand your position.

A woman is two weeks pregnant. Medically, a fertilized egg at this time is called a foetal yolk sac. With various imaging techniques, it looks, to the human eye, like a kidney bean. If a woman has an abortion at this time, the foetal sac contains various chemicals that begin to sort themselves.

If this woman has an abortion, is this the equivalent of starving someone?

A woman is two weeks pregnant. The egg attached outside of her uterus... an endometrial pregnancy. If the woman does not remove the implanted egg, she can have major medical problems. Endometriosis is a condition which can render females sterile (it's a condition in which the uterine lining that comprises a menstrual period's blood-- that's what a period is -- remains in the female body and causes extreme pain and sometimes requires a doctor to scrape away this dead tissue.)

Knowing that an ectopic pregnancy usually ends long before birth, is it okay to go ahead and abort this foetal yolk sac, or does a woman have to wait until the baby develops far enough along to die anyway?

Are any of these situations the business of anyone other than the woman and her doctor?

[Liberalatus]

217. Well, first...

There is a difference between philosophical absolutes, and forming a policy that is practical. So, that being said..

Yes, an IUD is the equivalent of killing.

Same with a morning after pill.

And from what I understand, (and I could be wrong) a birth control pill does, indeed, create a situation where the body thinks it is pregnant, but I thought that caused the egg not to be released. However, even if what you say is true, if BC pills cause the body to release a fertilized egg, than yes, it is the same.

Yes to the first situation. It is the same.

The last situation is different, as it actually puts the mother in serious harm. Yes, it should be done, and it is still killing. But it is to protect the mother, so it is justified.

Yes, it is more than up to just the woman and her doctor. If abortion is just legalized killing(and even if its not), then society must decide if that is appropriate and within acceptable limits to the cultural morality. Every society does this. It is nothing radical or new.

Now, as I said at the beginning, there is a difference between philosophical absolutes and practicality. I think the major difference between contraceptives and abortions is that contraceptives are preventative measures, and that the woman doesn't actually "know" for sure that an egg is being aborted. Even though the end result is the same, there is a moral difference. When a woman chooses to have an abortion, she is "consciously" choosing to terminate a life that she is aware of, as opposed to the former, where it is not certain, AND it is preventative. I agree a woman should have the right to choose if the pregnancy will directly put her in harm's way, but we cannot kid ourselves. She is choosing to terminate the life, to save her own. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that, but let's call it like it is.

[RainDog]

218. In other words, you do oppose birth control for females

based upon your religious or whatever belief, but not based upon any rational understanding of birth control.

or rather, you do not oppose the rhythm method (highly ineffective) or condoms or, I assume, spermicide, which only kills sperm but not fertilized eggs.

I think your positions are extremist and, frankly I do not want you to have any voice in what reproductive choices I or any member of my family may make.

You also do not represent the majority opinion in this nation on birth control.

are you also a pacifist? do you absolutely oppose any military action that results in anyone's death? If not, you're also a hypocrite.

if you can find one situation in which you think it's okay to kill another human, then the entire logic of your position is worthless, or rather, your opposition is not to "the equivalent of killing" but to female reproductive choice.

so, do you think it's okay to kill adults for any reason?

[Liberalatus]

224. Read first sentence again..

Because I am trying to have a civil intelligent discussion about a complicated subject, and it seems you are only trying to "trap" me in some kind of logical inconsistency, which I have already admitted to having.

There is a difference between a philosophical absolute, and being practical. If you cannot make that distinction, than we cannot continue. The philosophical absolute: It is wrong to kill. The practical: Sometimes it is neccessary and justified.

Example: Someone breaks into my home, and is threatening me or my family. I have the right to do whatever it takes to stop them, including killing them. That is justified. (Practical) However, I am opposed to the killing of another human being, in any case. If I am sitting there with a shotgun on my right, and a taser gun on my left, "my" personal moral code says I should use the taser, and not kill them unless I absolutely have to, as a last resort. (philosophy) Believing both statements, that it is okay to kill them, and that you shouldn't, are not logically inconsistent.

And I have said multiple times I am for birth control and contraceptives.

It seems you are polarizing the issue, "except" you won't polarize the issue of whether or not it is killing.

And you are entitled to your opinion, but none of my views are extremist. I think you say that only because they are opposite, or further, than yours. And you consider yourself to be middle. I consider that a bit of an insult, as I consistently work hard to be open-minded, respectful, and try to see past the muddy arguments of both sides to the philosophical nature and truth to things.

I realize I may not represent the majority, although I never claimed to represent anything other than my own. And I also said, that is one reason that allows me accept the legality of it, as the majority believes the contrary, and its already been settled. But, I would offer this. Being the popular, or the majority opinion has nothing to do with whether something is or should be morally acceptable. And I would like to see what the majority would say, if they all took the time and energy to discuss these things at great length, and studied the philosophy, cultures, and history of humanity.

[RainDog]

228. I do not think it is killing

if a woman has a birth control device that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. I thought that was evident. Nor do I think it is killing to abort a foetal egg sac.

We are talking about political positions related to choice and for that reason, I noted that your position is outside of the majority position - b/c this issue is discussed here in the context of laws. No, not every majority position is the correct one. However, in a case that deals with a woman's right to private decisions concerning her own reproductive life, the majority of Americans believe a woman and her doctor are the ones who should make these decisions.

As I asked... were any of the situations I noted something that should be the decided by someone other than a woman and her physician?

I do think that believing that birth control pills are murder is an extremist position. Or an IUD, or an abortion of a dead fetus, or an abortion of a foetal egg sac. It's hard for me to be "open-minded" when a large group of people in this nation want to deny science, yet again, and try to force women to bear children simply because they had sex.

Xemosab noted that you included ideas that would seem to indicate that you are opposed to contraception. After further questioning, it appears you are and that you think contraception is killing. I do not nor will I ever think that contraception is killing. not when it is an IUD or birth control pills or a morning after pill. If you think the majority doesn't realize that people make difficult decisions, then I think you are wrong. The majority thinks these decisions are a private matter.

Yes, if you look at history, philosophy and cultures, throughout all human history babies were killed after birth, as I noted here. Birth control has existed throughout recorded history as well and is a much better alternative to leaving an infant to be eaten by animals, or to be starved by a wet nurse. Thankfully we are no longer in a situation in which these sorts of horrors need to occur because women (and men) can use birth control to determine when to give birth.

This is the reality of the world in which we inhabit.

[Liberalatus]

232. Simplifying..

My argument is a philosophical one, that follows a specific line of logic. It is as such.

If a biological process exists that is neccessary to allow life to continue, and that process is stopped or interrupted voluntarily, that is very close to, or the same definition as "killing".

That seems like a sound argument to me. If that statement is true, then you can logically deduce that contraceptives are killing, as well as abortion, as the statement defines "killing". HOWEVER, I am saying that it is not the same as if I just go out and shoot someone, i.e. "murder", which conservatives, or anti-abortion people, seem to not want to make that distinction.

I am making a distinction between murder and killing. Birth control is killing, by the very definition. It is not extremist to call it what it is. I see it as just being illogical to argue otherwise. It is terminating a life. It seems a lot of pro-choice people (Which I am, by the way. And I LOVE science, as well as philosophy) do not want morality attached to it, so they deny it is killing, however, I make that distinction as saying it is not "murder". You and I agree that it is not "murder", I assume.

But here is the kicker...It is society's responsibility to determine, at some level, a basic code of morality. We all agree that murder is wrong. Killing is justified in certain circumstances. However, we should never kill, if it is not neccessary. All of those statements are not mutually exclusive moral codes. Confusing, yes, but that is why we have a judicial system, and laws.

Am I against abortion? No. Am I against contraceptives? Certainly not. Do I think the laws should be changed? No. But, I have a hard time accepting that the rights of the woman's "body" (not health, survival) is justification enough to allow killing. However, I do accept it as justified under certain circumstances.

[Hekate]

223. First, untold millions of unimplanted blastocysts are flushed away each month by Mother Nature

That's right, God allows the sperms and eggs to meet, divide a few times, and then callously allows them to be "lost" when the uterine lining flows away as menstruation.

As you said, "You aren't directly ending their life, but you aren't doing anything to keep them from dying, either."

Can you please explain to me why God is such a murderer?

Hekate

[Liberalatus]

234. Seriously? Okay, I'll bite...

I would say, whatever happens by nature, or "God", if you so deem, is a different situation, as that is just the way nature is set up. But you really aren't trying to compare a natural process, that happens unconsciously, and requires no action whatsoever, to consciously making a decision, and acting upon it? You must realize those are two different things.

And I have no idea why Christians get so up in arms about it. EVEN IF the "soul" is implanted at conception, every child that is aborted gets a free pass into heaven, right? Without even having to endure this evil, sinful world.

Asserting God is a murderer, by the way, seems a bit ridiculous and immature, as was the whole previous post, in my opinion.

[JerseygirlCT]

166. I cannot foresee the situation in which I'd personally

opt for an abortion. I'm not comfortable with making that choice myself.

However, I'll be damned if anyone but me gets to make that decision for me, and if anyone other than the individual woman concerned gets to make that decision for herself.

It's far too important, and often difficult, a decision for the gov't to be involved. Questions about when life begins are best left to philosophy and theology; a fetus has no legal standing.

[GreenEyedLefty]

169. My personal opinions...

Abortion: Pro-choice, 100%, in all cases. I also think abortion is a morally valid choice. If a woman feels she needs one, far be it from me to stand in her way.

On life: It begins at birth.

The opinions here fall on all sides of the issue, but here's hoping abortion stays safe and legal.

[Hekate]

180. I have pro-life friends who I would never call hypocrites. The politicians, yes...

I think the politicians are by-and-large cynical scum who have whipped up the sincere beliefs of ordinary people who have been awash in propaganda for the last 30 years.

This thread is no more relevant than any of the other thousand threads on the subject here at DU over the years. I usually give them wide berth because they tend to be flame-bait.

Hekate

[Solly Mack]

181. I support abortion

The question of when life begins plays no part in my support of abortion. Never has. Never will.

That women have the option is all that matters to me.

[Hekate]

183. Roe vs Wade was in accord with the majority of Americans' beliefs in 1973 and today...

When the Roe vs Wade decision was handed down its basic outlines were in accord with the majority of Americans' thoughts on prenatal life and abortion, which is to say (colloquially speaking):

(1) any fool knows that sperms and eggs are alive but are not people,
(2) when sperm and egg meet they MIGHT become a baby in 9 months IF the result is implanted and IF there's no miscarriage due to the poor health of the mother or poor DNA of the fetus,
(3) any fool knows that a 3-month fetus is alive but is not yet a person except in the hopes and dreams of its parents,
(4) life outside the uterus was not possible for a fetus 6 months and under in 1973, and unlikely for one of 7 months, thus shaping statements about "viability",
(5) a woman, any woman, might have a damn good reason to abort in the first trimester and it is HER business,
(6) nearly every culture and every religion in history pretty much backs that up,
(7) in the second trimester fetal kicks and other movements can be felt; this is called "quickening" meaning "coming to life"; before the end of the second trimester the fetus really looks like a little baby, and people find a miscarriage or abortion pretty disturbing because of that,
(8) nonetheless the fetus is still not viable outside its mother's womb,
(9) and there still might be a good reason for a woman to abort, but there should be some restrictions and more medical advice involved, especially as the bones have begun to harden and there is more risk to the woman,
(10) a fetus in the third trimester is pretty viable, really looks like a baby, and more restrictions ought to apply; abortion at that point is a serious medical procedure and involves delivery, just like regular childbirth,
(11) unrestricted access in the first trimester, increasing restrictions after that. There has NEVER been "abortion on demand even in the 9th month" -- that is a lie put out by the anti-choice hate-mongers.

For the majority of Americans this is still the case, and indeed that is how I see it. Any fool knows that every cell in our bodies is alive. The issue of the life of fetuses, blastocysts, zygotes, whatever that the anti-choice folks throw in our faces at every opportunity -- of course they're alive.

But their concerns (as with so much else that the fundies care about) should be moved over to the realm of theology. The question they are really asking is: When does ensoulment occur? That's a theological question and should be discussed in Sunday school; then people can decide what to do based on their religious beliefs if they want to.

When does ensoulment occur? That is the question Barack Obama was responding to when he said that it was a theological as well as scientific question and was "above his pay grade".

Cynical politicians manipulate people for their own purposes in the so-called culture war. Cynical talking heads play "gotcha" with anyone who is pro-choice, who sees the complexity of the situation for what it is. I wish that pro-choice public speakers/politicians/writers would start reframing early abortion as the theological issue that it is -- you can be sympathetic, but it's not about "life" it's about "when does the soul enter the body".

Hekate

[RainDog]

185. thank you! great post.

this is the real issue, not the bullshit from anti-choice cranks.

[Cleita]

186. Life began before the egg met the sperm, so that's a fact.

As far as when a baby becomes an individual it's when it doesn't need its mother to survive outside of the womb. I think it blows the whole partial birth abortion thing out of the water too. If a fetus has to be removed from the mother for reasons of the mother's health and it starts breathing and looks like it might live on it's own, then yes I say it's murder to let it die. Every effort should be made to incubate it and keep it alive. If it can't live outside the womb then it's still part of the mother and not an individual. Now I know this isn't very scientific but it's sort of where I have reasoned this. In other words I agree with those who say that the individual life of the baby begins at first breath.

[EFerrari]

189. Why aren't these @ssholes adopting my sink scum if they're so "pro-life"?

They aren't "pro-life" in the least or they'd be in here with a spatula.

[Cleita]

191. LOL! I hear ya!

:rofl:

[Dr Fate]

187. I dont care. Abortion is low on my list of things that kill people that I would ban.

I might be for banning abortion if I really thought the USA gave a crap whether people live or die-and if I knew we were doing all we could to provide education & healthcare...

Call me back when we outlaw war & polution, and when we fix our poor healthcare system-these things take more life than abortion could ever take.

[EFerrari]

188. I think those "pro-lifers" need to prove they've ever done a single pro-life

action in their lives.

Hassling pregnant women isn't "pro-life".

Would you harass a pregnant woman and brag about it?

[qwlauren35]

190. YES! Life begins at conception!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's such a no-brainer, it's a ridiculous question. To me, the bigger question is whether every new life should be brought to term. Nature says "no" all the time, and sometimes, we need to say "no" as well. If there is no one standing up to offer the child proper love and care, then I'd say NO WAY. (And to heck with what the birth mother or father wants.) If the child is so physically malformed that it would take major immediate surgery for the child to even survive, then I think it's best to let go early. Similarly, a child with ***no*** immune system.

But there are other circumstances, too. If a woman knows that the consequences of bringing the child to term may involve physical violence, then please abort the child. If a woman knows that bringing an unwanted child to term may cause the marriage to dissolve, then please give it a bit more thought. If the child MIGHT BE created from rape, please be comfortable taking a morning after pill with no further thought.

I guess I'm still not pro-choice. In my mind, there are truly times when the "abort" answer should be the ONLY choice.

[Tallison]

211. Interesting answer

Your answer assumes a scientific framework, when I've always considered it philosophically. Of course, the scientific framework itself makes a lot of philosophical assumptions, which is why I don't think either perspective can adequately account for the phenomenon and it's ultimately the pregnant woman's prerogative to decide.

[Crunchy Frog]

193. If life begins at conception, then I currently have 20 children.

This idea doesn't really work for me. :shrug:

[crimsonblue]

195. I'm not pro choice

I'm pro legal abortion. It must be legal to preserve its safety as a medical procedure.

[adamuu]

197. you don't want to know. you'd disagree with me and i'd deface DU by saying it. n/t

[onethatcares]

200. myself, me, and me alone, believes that

it is a decision made after a lot of thought, both ways. I don't believe in abortion in later trimesters unless the womans life or health is at risk, other factors, viability and brain activity of the fetus would have to be thought about at that time with professional people that can discuss all options.

I am pro life, but I am also Pro Choice. I am a male of the species. just to let you know.

[Overseas]

208. Freedom to control our own bodies. Period. Doesn't matter when you or I think life begins.

It is a difficult decision each woman will make on her own, in consultation with whatever authorities she respects.

Whenever you think life begins doesn't matter. It is her decision.

Fundamentalist Christians, The Taliban, and Wahabi Muslims believe THEY should control your body based on what THEY believe is best. Your body is theirs.

[Tallison]

210. It's up to the pregnant woman to decide

Since science nor religion will ever be able to answer adequately. Personally, I had an abortion 15 years ago, and never a moment's regret.

[Cerridwen]

219. Where do you personally stand on coat hanger abortions and is a

woman considered life?

I'll get back with you later on this.

Gird your loins. *snort* I'm not known for my subtlety.

[Raksha]

222. I used to believe life began at conception,

and I guess in a purely biological sense I still do. However, I have come to equate "human life" with human consciousness or at least the possibility of human consciousness, not simply the possession of the full number of chromosomes.

Before the development of the brain and central nervous system, there can be no possibility of human consciousness. So I'm not opposed to abortion in the first trimester, or later in cases of severe fetal abnormality.

[Help_I_Live_In_Idaho]

225. Free Sex - Free Birth Control - No Abortions - Instead

We can put them in test tubes and grow them to be universal solderers for the bush military industrial complex :silly: :silly: :silly: :crazy:

[intaglio]

226. A completely unaswerable question

Life is a term that can mean whatever the principles in an argument want it to mean. Better to use the word IDENTITY.

Technically two living cells, Oocyte and Spermatazoa, fuse to form a single cell; this cell, the blastula, is by any sensible definition is alive.

This blastula is not a person and is not a pregnancy, according to the AMA. They say pregnancy begins with implantation and leave the impossible problem of "person hood" to the legal system. If you push for an answer from the scientific community about awareness and person hood most will fudge the issue by saying that a personality cannot develop until after the central nervous system organises and the embryo cannot feel pain until the first pain neurones form.

On the other hand, the anti-abortionists say that the blastula is a person (has a 'soul') from the moment of it's formation and are likely to say that pregnancy begins at the same point. There is an unfortunate consequence to this that most of regard failure of implantation and miscarriage as "God's Will" - unless the woman has taken tablets to encourage those outcomes when it becomes abortion, murder and other sick epithets. Such people cannot see that because most pregnancies fail naturally at this stage without any chemical assistance it makes their Deity the biggest abortionist of all.

So where does that leave me? Well my unscientific opinion is that Identity, defined as an awareness of self however dim, cannot begin until there is some organised nervous system; I do NOT say that Identity does begin there but that it MIGHT. To avoid problems with defining "the nervous system" say that that becomes possible with the formation of the first ganglion of 3 or 4 nerve cells. I do not say that termination after my arbitrary start of Identity is wrong but that from that time onwards a far more careful consideration of the consequences of termination is warranted.

[Iris]

227. I don't know when life begins. Which is why I favor neither restricting abortion and contraception

rights based on when someone thinks begins. Nor am I a big fan of things like in vitro, especially when it leaves a fertilized human egg in frozen limbo.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

230. I don't want to get into the personal story that brings me to this conclusion...

...but when the baby starts to move and respond to the outside world, that is not something without life.
I think that abortion is a tough decision, and I think that as long as it is done in the first trimester, it is acceptable. I don't know if I could say OK, but I can't judge how tough of a decision it is. At that point, I do not feel it's murder.
I don't know if I make that decision myself.
Duckie

[ljm2002]

231. I don't believe it's up to you...

...to make that decision for my daughters. I personally don't give a crap what you believe about whose reasons are good and whose are not.

I'm sick of pandering to the crowd who proclaim they are the only ones who adhere to morality. I will not explain my thinking on their terms. Fuck them. They are authoritarian personalities who cannot think for themselves and who cannot see gray areas -- unless and until it applies to them, then they are master chameleons.

We need to preserve a woman's right to choose, and we need to preserve the right of women to practice modern birth control. The laws that would limit these choices, are laws that deem women morally unfit to make these decisions for themselves. I am for allowing women make these decisions for themselves.

The day we stop sending 18-year-old boys across the ocean armed with rifles, grenades, et-fucking-cetera, to kill soldiers and civilians at will -- making those decisions all by their little selves -- is the day I might listen to someone who thinks that 40-year-old women don't always make good decisions regarding their own fertility. Until that day, anyone who wants even broach the subject of rolling back from where we are now on reproductive rights can shove it right up their rosy red ass.

[Dark]

233. Until the (i think this is what it's called) day of gestation,

when the fetus has a >50% chance of surviving, it's the woman's choice.

After that, I would consider the fetus a person.

To me, it's all about whether or not the child can survive outside the womb.